Filed: Mar. 01, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6963 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., a/k/a Steven Ray Maupin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:96-cr-50034-nkm) Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6963 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., a/k/a Steven Ray Maupin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:96-cr-50034-nkm) Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6963 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., a/k/a Steven Ray Maupin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:96-cr-50034-nkm) Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim P. 41(g) motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Mettetal’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Mettetal, No. 3:96- cr-50034-nkm (W.D. Va. May 3, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
